I was just taking this from another tangent and highlighting that there are other things to consider, including but not limited to – considering the client’s point of view, considering the nature of virals and whether experiments like this damage the trust in the strategy and so on.

I understand the 20/80 rule but the purpose of a true viral campaign is to break that rule. Yes this video shouldn’t generate 100000 views – specially not today (The Youtube channel shows that it was up uploaded 3 hours ago btw) but if it a good use of the Russell Athletic brand? Remixing two virals – is great but it must have a benefit to the brand and the cause – on both sides.

Apologies if I have offended.

I understand what you are saying but I think your reference to success is not needed. If you make a voucher that rewards friend-get-friend activity then you’ve done a referral campaign. If you only ever reach two people it’s a pretty awful campaign but importantly it’s still a pretty awful referral campaign. So this video and the many like it are all viral videos in the sense they are created for viral activity – though Pareto law tells us that 20% of them will generate 80% of the total traffic. The RATM bandwagon is too far gone for any current vids to generate 100,000 views – especially when the campaign only has 8x that subscribed – but it’s good fun to watch and even more fun to get involved and co-create something. That was the true message behind this post.